4.6 Article

Network-related mechanisms may help explain long-term HIV-1 seroprevalence levels that remain high but do not approach population-group saturation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 152, 期 10, 页码 913-922

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/152.10.913

关键词

disease outbreaks; group processes; group structure; HIV-1; HIV seroprevalence; narcotics; social environment; social support

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA06723] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In many cities, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 seroprevalence among drug injectors stabilizes at 30-70% for many years without secondary outbreaks that increase seroprevalence by 15% or more. The authors considered how HIV-1 incidence can remain moderate at seroprevalence levels that would give maximum incidence. Previously suggested answers include behavioral risk reduction and network saturation within high-risk subgroups. Among 767 drug injectors studied in 1991-1993, during a period of stable high seroprevalence in New York City, risk behaviors remained common, and networks were far from saturated. The authors suggest a different network-based mechanism: in stable high-prevalence situations, the relatively small sizes of subnetworks of linked seronegatives (within larger networks containing both infected and uninfected persons) may limit infectious outbreaks. Any primary infection outbreak would probably be limited to members of connected subcomponents of seronegatives, and the largest such subcomponent in the study contained only 18 members (of 415 seronegatives). Research and mathematical modeling should study conditions that may affect the size and stability of subcomponents of seronegatives. Finally, if the existence of small, connected components of seronegatives prevents secondary outbreaks, this protection may weaken, and vulnerability to new outbreaks increase, if HIV-1 seroprevalence falls. Thus, in situations of declining prevalence, prevention programs should be maintained or strengthened.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据